Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel advances bill allowing utilities to propose low‑income rates and programs to PRC
Summary
The Senate Conservation Committee voted to give House Bill 91 a do‑pass recommendation after testimony from utilities, consumer advocates and opponents. The bill would authorizethe Public Regulation Commission to consider voluntarily proposed rate designs or programs aimed at reducing energy burden for low‑income customers.
Senator Mimi Stewart, the senate sponsor, told the Senate Conservation Committee that House Bill 91 would “give New Mexico a new tool in addressing the disproportionately high utility costs faced by far too many New Mexicans.” The bill would allow the Public Regulation Commission to consider — for the first time — investor‑owned utilities’ voluntary proposals for rates or programs that reduce energy burden on low‑income customers.
The bill’s sponsor and supporters said HB91 is enabling, not mandatory: utilities would choose whether to propose low‑income rate classes or programs, and the PRC would evaluate proposals under the commission’s usual just‑and‑reasonable standard. “This is voluntary,” said Senator Stewart. “It enables but does not require our utilities to propose low income rates.”
Nut graf: Supporters say the bill would create an ongoing tool to reduce chronic energy burden that one witness said can reach 20% or more of household income in some New Mexico counties, while opponents warned the measures could shift costs to other customers and urged using existing programs such as LIHEAP instead.
Utility representatives and clean‑energy advocates described potential program forms beyond direct rate discounts, including whole‑building efficiency upgrades for multifamily housing and reduced interconnection fees for low‑income developments. Dr. Anna Linden Weller, senior policy adviser for clean energy at Western Resource Advocates, said utilities would define eligible customers in any proposal and must justify the design in a public rate case. “They would have to define what they meant by low income,” Weller said, and the PRC and intervenors would be able to litigate whether the proposed rate or program is “just and reasonable.”
Supporters included utility witnesses who said their companies back the enabling approach. Amy Scribe, registered lobbyist for New Mexico Gas Company, testified the company prioritizes low‑income customers and supports the bill. Jared Najjar of El Paso Electric and Mike D’Antonio of Xcel Energy said their companies back the bill’s flexibility. Civil‑society supporters, including Alexis Mena of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Victoria Macias of a local project (testimony identified as the Samia Project), argued other states have adopted similar measures and New Mexico is overdue.
Opponents said HB91 would effectively redistribute costs among customers. Carla Sontag, president and CEO of the New Mexico Business Coalition, said the bill could leave people slightly above an eligibility threshold paying more: “What about that single mom that has four children, and she’s at 201% of the poverty level, and she doesn’t qualify for those lower rates,” Sontag said. Several residents and retirees, including Ramona Goolsbee and Beth Dowling, said existing programs such as LIHEAP and utility charity funds are preferable because they do not raise rates for other customers.
Committee members pressed on details the bill leaves to later PRC proceedings. Senator Cedillo Lopez and other members noted the House amendment broadened the text from “rates” to “rates and programs,” creating flexibility but also uncertainty about which specific measures utilities could propose. Senator Townsend and others asked whether programs would simply shift costs among rate classes; experts answered that such shifts are possible but historically small in examples given, and that PRC proceedings and intervenors can contest proposals.
Votes at the committee level: a do‑pass motion was called; the roll call in committee, as recorded in the hearing, shows Senator Cervantes, Senator Charlie, Senator Hamlin, Senator Pope, Senator Cedillo Lopez and Senator Stefanik voting yes; Senator Zell, Senator Scott, Senator Townsend and Senator Yazzell voting no. The motion was recorded as carried in committee by roll call.
Ending: Committee members asked sponsors to work further with utilities and the PRC on definitions and drafting before the bill proceeds to the next committee. The hearing record shows questions and suggested technical fixes that sponsors and supporters said they would pursue in follow‑up work.
